Jump to content
MaryJanes2ndLastDance

Wildflowers (the album) and a bunch of other stuff

Recommended Posts

As for his art, craft & story-telling skills, I rate all of Wildflowers as a masterpiece. 

Just randomly from an album relatively soon afterwards, I also consider Blue Sunday from Last DJ very highly. Hemingway would be happy with it, I feel. After all, his shortest novel was 6 words. For sale: baby shoes. Never worn. (Oh dear, Wikipedia says maybe it wasn't Hemingway.)

Anyway, my point is : yes, their early songs were sensational, creating a solid foundation for their career, & they just continued to improve. In my opinion. 

She took a rolled up twenty out of her pocket and  paid for my cigarettesWe were friends at first sight in the 7-11 light.  She said, "Here, lemme cover it"And I rode shotgun all that nightShe drove, and never made a soundI asked if there was anything wrongShe said, "Nothing worth talkin' about"

It's a blue Sunday, down the interstateYeah a blue SundayBlue, with shades of grey.

Her backseat could've been a hotel. I slept for a thousand years. Every now and then she'd laugh out loud for no reasonI pretended not to hear. I rolled my jacket up under my head and stretched my body out
Couldn't be too far in front of her daddy's blood hounds, but I ain't gonna worry now

A blue Sunday. We never met beforeIt's a blue SundayWhen it's time to leave you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Big Blue Sky said:

story-telling skills.........Just randomly from an album relatively soon afterwards, I also consider Blue Sunday from Last DJ very highly.

Those are good lyrics. Particularly the line about backseat/hotel. 

4 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

Kind of an odd "song", not much music to it.  A little like "Something Good Coming" in that way. 

I think it's all about how best lyrics and music work together, so I think the minimal music of Blue Sunday helps set the feeling of the lyrics, anything busier would ruin the mood. I think Something Good Coming could be the best song on Mojo and the music there is somehow both intense in feeling while remaining gentle, a bit of a paradox but it works.

Returning to the last dj briefly, for me, that run of songs, from 8-11 on Last Dj is just a very sleepy set of songs that helps sink the record for me. And while I like the more uptempo numbers it's more for the guitar interplay live than the actual songs themselves (lost children and kid goes bad, though at least the former is more of a better song overall). 

While I do like the song Blue Sunday, and maybe this sort of touches on Drew's point, that a lot of the time in the latter albums the music is very much left wanting or feels generic, bland. So in th eend I dont' care about what is being sung when the music is uninteresting to me. That's not the case with Blue Sunday but defintiely with some of Wildflowers, Dj and Echo.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

Yes, those - and as far as I know "Dark of the Sun", "Ain't Love Strange", "Magnolia", "Hurt", "Ways to be Wicked" and so many more that might have been great in concert.   And those are just from the early days.  So much of HE and a lot of HC might have been great live as well.  I too was hoping for a residency similar to Fillmore 1997 or Chicago 2003

Whenever they played residencies I was disappointed with all the covers when so many of their own songs could've been played.  Oh well. But not only is it moot now it was moot then, though at least they did play songs like When The Time Comes, Nightwatchman etc. Better than nothin'! Who knows why they didn't dig deeper perhaps some future interviewer will ask the band.

 

23 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

"The Criminal Kind" from your list could have made a fantastic concert song.  Not the most relatable subject matter, but with the searing lead guitar and hard-hitting drum part, plus the vocals that start quietly and build up to a shout - wow that song was just begging to be played live. 

 One of their best songs and one that climbed up in my estimation. This, Nightwatchman, and Same Old You all feel slightly similar but in a good way, slinky riff and funky beat, with outros made for jamming.

ciao

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe i have different copies of the albums you mention.

Mine kick ass & I play them loud to my great enjoyment. Presumably the neighbours' enjoyment too, as they've not mentioned anything negative (& they're not backwards in coming forward).

Sleepy? Bland? Generic? Jeez, yours sound terrible. Surprised & impressed you hung in there.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I wouldn't dream of interrupting Garth, Levon, Richard & Rick, who are currently playing an intricate rhythm recorded 50 tears ago. So, when they're finished tearing it up, Wildflowers (the masterpiece version, not your sorry version) is going on. And I can tell you in advance, I'm gonna enjoy it! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

Whenever they played residencies I was disappointed with all the covers when so many of their own songs could've been played.  Oh well. But not only is it moot now it was moot then, though at least they did play songs like When The Time Comes, Nightwatchman etc. Better than nothin'! Who knows why they didn't dig deeper perhaps some future interviewer will ask the band.

I agree, 100%.  When I wrote I'd have liked another residency like Fillmore 1997 or Chicago 2003, I meant - but playing their own neglected song catalog, rather than all those covers.  Frankly when people point to those residencies as some of their best shows, I think "no way, because they played too many covers and not enough of their own songs".  The sound quality was usually very good and the playing was fine for that time period, but those shows don't rate so highly with me due to the song selection.  Still, a "cover" or two of one of their own rarely played songs at those residencies was nice. 

But I also thought of them as missed opportunities; they were no longer playing to the casual crowds but to the die-hard fans, so they could have ignored the "must play" setlist in favor of their own rarely played songs.  Instead they did a lot of covers.  Don't get me wrong, I've loved their covers of certain songs over the years - including "Louie, Louie", "Route 66", "I Fought The Law", "Bye Bye Johnny", "Don't Bring Me Down", "Should I Stay or Should I Go", etc.  But at Fillmore and Chicago, it was simply too many covers in proportion to their own songs, far too many.   Oh well (including the cover of Fleetwood Mac's "Oh Well" - frankly I'd have rather heard one of TPATH's own songs).   
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reporting in. Wildflowers album played all way through, much to delight of my neighbours' pets & me.  It's as fantastic a masterpiece as ever.

Found another quotable TP lyric: "Who could've seen you'd be... so hard to please... somehow?" It's on final song, so, understandably, if you were bored or underwhelmed by music on your version, you mightn't have reached that far. 😉

Still, if "Wildflowers" doesn't speak to your immortal soul, well, shrug, no skin off my nose.  Presumably some other music does - that's the main thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

But at Fillmore and Chicago, it was simply too many covers in proportion to their own songs, far too many.

With our previous "beef" regarding the exact nature (as well as origins and effects) of the band's big and substantial stylistic shift on Wildflowers largely left hanging (since possibly my attempts at understanding your perspective, as well as my offerings in ways of possible alternative explanations to the "Stoner" arguement, was too off the mark to be bothered with?), we really share the same view on this aspect of the live set. Agreed, indeed. Man they went overboard at Filmore and Vic.

The set list approach of Tom's was - as you may or may not have found by now - the most badly beaten dead horse on this Farm, for years. (In parts due to yours truely, I concede.) The main issue for me, and others, was that the number of "mandatory" titles - titles that were the same, night after night and even tour after tour, reached a critical number with the success of FMF, ITGWO and Wildflowers. A low count: they had 7 more "must" songs and almost as many "probables" by say 98, than they did in 88. (So, again, the mid 90s timing of your wider critique, that something changed, really do gain some kinda credit here.)

Their are just so many slots to a 90 minutes set. The commercial success during those years (with expanding of fan base, ticket sales and what have you) combined with Tom's seemingly increased self consciousness, eagerness to please the crowds - the pop fans as much as the stoners I'd personally say, judging from most of the hit singles of the era - and somewhat strange notion that sameness wasn't just commercially necessary, but it was also technically required* , not to say a precondition for him to keep up maximum detail control over the show - really got him into a very fixed format, musically .** Personally, I'm not sure what his deep down reasons may have been to stick to the formula so much, but the fact remains - the must-play songs did clog up the majority of the standard set. Of course this room became even smaller then, once TPATH dug up the usual cover or two to round things off. To some this "covers eating valuable time" argument was a real problem fairly early on in the career as I understand it. And of course it was bound to get worse when all the slots, more or less, was already taken to begin with. Then add new albums and perhaps a new song or two that they needed to introduce.***    

In the light of all this then - the covers. I for one think that playing covers is part of what playing music in general and rock and roll specifically is all about. It's how you explore and pay homage to tradition, it's how you make it your own and mark your place inside it. It's very much a living and creative part of what band do. More over, TPATH did it better than most, IMO. (This to make the distinction between people who play covers for lack of original material, however bad or technically brilliant those covers may be, they rarely add much - and those who play covers to deepen their own artistic quality and catalogue - an important enough distinction perhaps.). With very few exceptions, I find TPATH's covers of choice and their renditions of other people's music to be very, very interesting and very efficiently expanding on their own skills, their understanding of music as well as their vibe and their own material. They prove a vast passion and knowledge in many music fields. It's a very modern, copyright and/or marketable products oriented perspective to dismiss covers, IMO. That is, music to me is something much bigger, deeper.. more universal.. than any signature on the sheet music. In short, I don't care who wrote the song as long as the performance add something to the song and to the performer and most of all.. takes me places. 

That said, given the issue at hand. We have say 18 slots to a 90s minutes show. And we have 12-15 songs that "has to be" included more or less on every night and/or tour and the band has a couple  covers - tour specific or more classic picks like Traveling Wilburys or whatever - that they groove on for the moment and want to add to the mix. Well.. worst case scenario then, there are just two or just one or even none at all slots left to play anything more. Thank you and good night! Now, here's where the famed old "canibalism of arguemts" start. Some say.. ok.. so skip those covers and play three of the lesser known originals each tour. Other's say, skip those covers and rotate some rare originals in those remaining spots. Both of which are ok ideas, by all means. Then there are those, like myself, who don't get as offended by the covers and look elsewhere for culprits. Perhaps, my theory goes, TPATH wouldn't have lost too much of their commercial success and their live reputation if they had taken two-three slots from the usual suspects lot and rotated some of their widely neglected, underrated and mismanaged (with great skill!) hidden originals in their place. They could still have plenty of room for 10-12 familiar hits and/or standard pick crowd pleasers each night and a few covers of choice. At least to me, that seem like the obvious way to do it. But in the debate it was always covers or deep cuts, what's it gonna be? I don't understand the underlying stipulation that those were the alternatives. Sure, some said moot, and sure enough. I just never fully grasped what so horrible with the covers in the light of everything. 

Then again, at Filmore and Vic recidencies, it surely went over board. I totally agree with this. With such a set of shows, leaving the standard set formula both in scope and lenght, they really didn't have to spend 98,5 % of their dig deep energy on covers. They really should have benefited greately IMO if they had earmarked another few slots each night for their neglected originals. Like you say, they play such shows to their fans rather than to average ticket buying crowds of the normal show or festival. Legendary as those shows have become among said, I think all core fans would have rated those shows even more legendary had they featured another handful of rarely or never played originals. In that sense they were certainly missed opportunities, despite all the hype and goodwill. And I say that as a big fan of all of those shows and sets. They could and should have been aimed slightly differently IMO. To some extent, the balance was better come the Fonda and Beacon stays, so perhaps the logic - in spite of all other evidence - wasn't totally lost on Tom after all. I realize there probably were a few songs that Tom just didn't want to play (say Zombie Zoo) but there are still plenty, not to say dozens that really could've been played and surely would've made much affirmative noice among fans. It's too bad so little of that ever happened and that even less of it seemed to happen as their live sound developed (IMO) in recent years of their careeer. I truely and firmly believe that this particular cake could've been had and still eaten too.. You never had to throw out all the covers to make room for a few more originals. That's my understandning of history and it's just too bad that they never got around to explore more of this while there were still time.

 

 

------

*That is, the argument has been frequently put forward, that too shifting a set would have meant too complicated aparatus, in terms of pre-programmed lights, tele promters, not to mention guitar changes and service tasks, exact lengh of show and what have you, stipulated in contracts (none of which I personally buy at all, of course). Also that Tom, being the famous perfectionist, really prefered to have everything neatly planned and scripted, since to him technical perfection, with minimum of risk involved,  supposedly overruled artistic quality - if he had to choose, that is. This latter aspect seem less than charming, speaking of Tom's image, but it may be hard to deny that indeed a sense of "saftey net" was a factor for him. Any crowd reaction decidedly less euphoric than the reception the iconic Free Fallin' intro regularly got, was a potential threat, seemingly. A new song that didn't at least tore down a fair amount of cheer, or even the ones who did, but had other more or less noticeble "issues" during their first public appearance, was never to be introduced again. If this is Tom being superstitious or just overly weary of his "perfect" show, is hard to say. 

** Personally, I really appreciate how Tom took the artistically important aspect of creating an "arch", a well crafted and functional sequence of songs, so seriously. My main issue, is that either he didn't think that exploring variations to his general set up worth while (as in "what would happen if I throw this song in here, if I tried this old gem, if I skipped this one for this tour, or put these songs in this order), or he truly didn't believe that a good arch could be had in more than two or three different ways. Increasingly it seems that once he had found his working set, he ran with it, and put it to minimal change - why change a winning concept, being the ruling logic. Again, I strongly believe that it was his conviction that he needed more or less all of the "big ones" each and every night, that kinda put him in a corner eventually. Too bad. This as a general critique rather than a credible description of each and every set from the mid 90s out. --- Another dimension of this, of course - and this has also been dealt with repeatedly in the past - is how Tom, seemingly more and more frequently with age, described an upcoming tour in terms of "this time we are really gonna dig deep", "this time we rehearsed I think almost 80s songs", "we are really gonna mix it up tonight" and stuff like that. All of which, of course, to be frank, is just bs. Basically. Creating an ever developing sense of disapointment among certain fan groups, that in some ways would have been avoided if thre would have been more of a public admittance from the band that they didn't have all that far reaching ideas or ideals when it comes to creative or dynamic integrity within the set. "Again - we're here with the show! Come see us for some killer rock'n'roll." Ok then. Thank you. Sorry, I know it's just part of the image and it's part of the show, not to be that straight. But the way they talked in the 00s very much contrasted with what was actually going down on most, if not all nights on most of those post LDJ tours. This gap between good hearted and well meant jibberish and reality's business as usual, always struck me as one of very few character flaws with this band. I spent many years thinking that perhaps they should just stop promising European tours and real variation to the setlist year after year... Because they make them self look silly when they're at it for the fifth time.. Still I realize.. they had to play the game.. perhaps.. Sidenote.

*** Again, Mojo tour is interesting in this regard. Even if they played no less than a bold 5 of the then new songs on a regular basis in 2010 - back to back even! - they still had room for two covers (really among their least interesting and most overplayed covers, but still..). To make that possible they must have cut the list of the "usual suspects" down at least by one or two. This shows it can be done, even if it really was the last none residency attempt at anything like it that they ever did. I mean..as a final note, inside a note.. Just imagine then.. had they rotated those 5 (or even 6 or 7..) Mojo tracks over a three slot segment mid show, mixing them up some over the tour, there would still have been room then for one or two less common older originals too. Again.. There are just sooooo many ways to do this - not only by cutting covers -  most of which to my knowledge was never fully acknowledged by Tom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as covers go, my first show was the 87 Mansfield MA Jun 27 show which is widely available as a bootleg these days. I for one lost my sh%^ when they broke into "Should I stay or should I go"  - the crowd in general went pretty mental too as far as that goes.  

I know there are all kinds of people that like all kinds of music but I really consider this album a masterpiece and I am eager to someday hear 'All The Rest' in what is hopefully the track order and mix that Tom would have wanted. Simply put, its hard for me to wrap my head around a fan not enjoying this particular album...   I won't go as far to say there are two kinds of people, those that love Wildflowers and those who have the wrong opinion about it... but I would come close to that sentiment. ;) 

 

I don't want to get into a set-list debate, but I'd have loved a more varied set the last few decades.  I still enjoyed every moment of each show I saw, even if they never played Spike for me or a handful of other tunes I'd have loved to hear... thank God for people that recorded shows and share them especially the Livepetty site! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

Frankly when people point to those residencies as some of their best shows, I think "no way, because they played too many covers and not enough of their own songs". 

I agree but it's definitely a minority opinion. I understand enjoying the band in close quarters and that the shows were different from the standard tours but I didn't quite understand everyone's excitement over the covers. I still don't but I figure, people just really love seeing them play live, so seeing them live and in close quarters is more than enough; sure maybe they'd like to hear deep cuts but are still just happy to be there. From a songwriting point of view, most of the covers they did, for me, were inferior to their own music. But I figure most people don't care and like I said, it's all moot now. 

The band enjoyed playing those songs so they played 'em and that's it. Now, I view the covers I do like as a fresh alternative to the usual things they played and enjoy them at that level but I get where you're coming from.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hoodoo Man said:

 I won't go as far to say there are two kinds of people, those that love Wildflowers and those who have the wrong opinion about it... but I would come close to that sentiment.

It's a very polarizing album/event.   Some people rank WF at or near the top among all Petty's albums.  Others consider it a serious disappointment, a step in the wrong direction, and rank it near the bottom of all Petty albums.  But there's no denying that it has a significant and enthusiastic group of supporters.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hoodoo Man said:

when they broke into "Should I stay or should I go"  - the crowd in general went pretty mental too as far as that goes.  

Absolutely!  I was at a show in Chicago 1989 where they did that song, and the crowd loved it there too.  Of course it helped that the song was played toward the end of their set, and they'd been building momentum to that point.  Plus if I'm not mistaken it was played louder than the previous songs.  It was a well-timed, well-performed rock and roll cover that got the crowd excited, that's always a good thing.

Cover songs certainly had their place with this band, if they didn't become too numerous.  Another example - on the North Carolina 1989 radio show, the very first song is a cover - "Bye Bye Johnny", played with great energy, fantastic start to the show.  All of the rest of the radio concert (an additional 15 songs) were Petty authored or co-authored. 

The Fillmore and Chicago shows were roughly half covers, and I agree with MJ2LD that they weren't particularly exciting covers at that.  For example the last show at the Vic 2003 had 28 songs, but only 12 were from a TP or TPATH studio album.  Additionally they did "Handle With Care", "Black Leather Woman", "Melinda", and "Two Men Talking" which were at least written or co-written by TPATH band members, but never on a TP/TPATH album.  The other 12 were covers written outside the band (if my count is correct).   The only even slightly "deep" album track was "Crawling Back To You", the others were performed at multiple concerts on multiple tours.  And that was fairly typical of both residencies, SF and Chicago.  Which doesn't make them "bad" concerts per se, but a missed opportunity to play some of their own neglected album tracks.   

I'm not sure why those shows rate so highly with some TPATH fans; as we've said we all have somewhat different taste in music.  I actually think quantity may be a slight factor.  The final show at the Fillmore 1997 had 40 songs, if I've counted correctly.   No other TPATH concert comes close to that.  If I may compare that with The Beatles, their "White Album" originally had 30 tracks, far more than any other Beatles album.  And that album rates very highly, usually in the top 5 of Beatles albums, it's even been ranked in the top 10 of the greatest albums of all time (#10 of all time, by anyone, according to Rolling Stone magazine).  I'd actually rank it at or near the very bottom of The Beatles album barrel.  I do wonder, if it wasn't by The Beatles and it wasn't their only double LP - where it would truly rank in the album universe.  But who knows.  Everyone has their reasons for liking something, and we are just sharing opinions, not trying to come up with a definitive conclusion about what is "best".            

   

Edited by TheSameOldDrew
changed estimate to "roughly half" and added date

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:
9 hours ago, Shelter said:

- the most badly beaten dead horse on this Farm, for years. (In parts due to yours truely, I concede.)

I was right there with you, ha ha! Legitimate arguments but man I flogged the damn thing to dust.

I'm sure it was a well-discussed topic here, and frankly it deserved to be (the repetitive tour-after-tour setlist issue, when so many great self-authored songs were being forever ignored).  I'd have loved to have asked TP that one question, why did he keep doing virtually the same tour setlist after 1995?  Of course I'd want him to know that I was a die-hard fan, and that my reason for asking was simply because he had well over 100 worthy self-authored songs that weren't being played.   Was he gearing every show to first time and "casual" fans who didn't know much more than the singles?  Did he not think his own song catalog was as great as we think it is?  It was baffling and frustrating.

Plus, before nearly every tour he would say things like "We're going to do it a little differently this time, really reach deep and shake up the setlist".  Then - pretty much the same as before.  About 10 "must play" songs, maybe 3 from the most recent album, maybe 3 covers, and a couple of slots left for deeper tracks.  On one tour he was even doing "Sweet William", the B-side of "Room at the Top" issued in Germany only (yes I have it, as a major fan, it's "ok" but nothing stunning).  It was almost as if he was saying "I'll reach so deep to get that one song, that should satisfy people more than if I did 3-4 deep but not quite as deep tracks".  Who knows.  I don't want to sound critical of TP; I'm so incredibly grateful to have had him as a songwriter, bandleader, performer, in my lifetime.  But it frustrated me that he seemed as if he didn't realize how beloved even his "deeper" tracks were by so many fans.    

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

The final show at the Fillmore 1997 had 40 songs, if I've counted correctly.   No other TPATH concert comes close to that. 

I think the Fillmore is so highly rated not just because of the length but the quality of the performances, the band having played 19 prior shows there were really focused yet also able to have fun. Factor in the A sound quality and some nice jamming throughout the night and you have a special one of a kind show. Of course it's shocking to see the covers outnumber the originals. Interestingly enough, aside from Red Rocks I think, maybe one other show, their last tour they skipped the covers. '

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

I'm sure it was a well-discussed topic here, and frankly it deserved to be (the repetitive tour-after-tour setlist issue, when so many great self-authored songs were being forever ignored).

Ha ha, boy. I mean, it was a lively discussion with some really good points, alternate possibilities the band could've done and so on but it was also like dropping a nuke on this place. Whatever the alternative suggested at the time,  I think they were preferable to the path the band took but many thousands of satisfied fans and the band's checkbook might argue otherwise. 

The big mystery man, was why they didn't play so many songs; didn't like how they sounded, figure the audience would be bored, just forgot them? Even a lot of the Beacon/Fonda shows they'd pull out songs I didn't care for, so I just think my taste happened to not align with the band's when it came to things like this; I like the song Two Gunslinges and Swingin' is all right but man, so many other really good deep cuts never played. Oh well.

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shelter said:

Their are just so many slots to a 90 minutes set.

I think that's why it became either/or regarding covers. With so few spots available, play the deep cut not the cover. Or it seemed that way anyway, that it was either going to be one or the other since they didn't add that many songs to the overall total played after a certain point. If the deep cuts even registered with the band; what I think of a deep cut (Finding Out or It Ain't Nothing To Me) versus what they did, (Two Gunslingers, Swingin').

Bad enough I helped shatter this damn topic to so many itsy-bitsy pieces, now I'm digging it back up and having another go! 

Nice points you make overall though.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

I'm sure it was a well-discussed topic here

I think in one of those ten-thousand links I flooded you with is a discussion or two of the sets, how they went during a tour, the disappointment and vitriol from some quarters in contrast to the concertgoers. Read 'em if ya dare. Or maybe if you need help falling asleep at night. :)

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TheSameOldDrew said:

.  I'd have loved to have asked TP that one question, why did he keep doing virtually the same tour setlist after 1995?  Of course I'd want him to know that I was a die-hard fan, and that my reason for asking was simply because he had well over 100 worthy self-authored songs that weren't being played.   Was he gearing every show to first time and "casual" fans who didn't know much more than the singles?  Did he not think his own song catalog was as great as we think it is?  It was baffling and frustrating.

Hmmm, so how many are there? For some reason I was thinking 400 but maybe / probably including covers... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Big Blue Sky said:

Hmmm, so how many are there? For some reason I was thinking 400 but maybe / probably including covers... 

What matters is that the band just didn't plum feel like playin' these here deep cuts and if they did, well shore as shite Mr. Petty didn't and there it lay in the dirt. Now maybe too, the crowd are a-gonna respond more to a song they recognize that's a cover than to a song they dont' a-recognize that ain't a cover but is a 100-purcetn oreeegeenal tune, so maybe a lame, disinterested audience response to a deep cut and the lowering of the crowd's collective energy was another raisin this here band just kept their stagecoach on the well worn trail. Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shelter said:

In the light of all this then - the covers. I for one think that playing covers is part of what playing music in general and rock and roll specifically is all about. It's how you explore and pay homage to tradition, it's how you make it your own and mark your place inside it.

I understand this and respect it and I'd even add the simple notion that for many a band, breaking into a cover is fun; perhaps there is less pressure in performing it as well, a chance to let loose on stage. That's all good. But for me, while some covers are fine, and some I even like, I'm there because of the headlining band's songs and their ability to deliver on stage. While a cover song may mean a lot to them, with rare exception I'd much rather here their own music than what influenced them; besides which, often times what an artist (doesn't have to be a musician either) likes or was influenced by doesn't necessarily mean I'll enjoy it. Sometimes when I've gone for a writer or musician's recommendations I've been disappointed. 

I think you're onto it though when you say it was a way for Tom and the band to honor their predecessors and take part or revel in the tradition they'd become a part of; makes sense for sure and comes through, especially in Benmont interviews where he seems to love so much music and brings that joy to playing it, with the Heartbreakers or his own solo shows. Good observation, Shelter.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...